Given that if the eightieth session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) last week closed with an agreement that accelerates the initial strategy to reduce gas emissions greenhouse effect produced by ships, which was launched in 2018 ( of 7 July 2023), but placing stages on this path that are not binding, as organizations can imagine environmentalists who more than others are pressing for the decarbonisation of shipping are not satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations that took place in recent days in London.

'The 175 Member States of the IMO have failed to agree on binding emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040'. They complained about this in a joint statement representatives of the Clean Shipping Coalition, Transport & Environment, Seas At Risk, Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Environment and Carbon Market Watch acknowledging that they were only scheduled "indicative control points" to check whether in the 2030 strategy has led to a reduction in emissions between 20% and 30% and if in 2040 the decrease has reached 70-80%, to reach zero, or emissions Around zero, in 2050, depending - the six pointed out organizations - 'national contingencies'. The environmental organizations, as already widely Urged, they reiterated that, with the aim of limiting the increase in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius as provided for by the Paris Agreement, transport emissions maritime should be halved by 2030 and zeroed by 2040.

In the communiqué, the six organizations not only criticize the IMO. because it deals timidly and inadequately with issues climate and environmental, but above all for lack of transparency as negotiations take place behind closed doors without the parties being interested nor the media can attend.

"There are no excuses - is the comment of John Maggs of the Clean Shipping Coalition - for this agreement which is a wishful thinking and a prayer. They knew what science required and whereas a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 was possible and convenient. Instead, the agreed level of ambition is well below what is needed to make sure you maintain global warming below 1.5º C, and uses a language that appears artfully vague and not demanding. Most Vulnerable fought admirably for big ambitions and to significantly improve the agreement, but we are still very far from the IMO treating the climate crisis with the urgency that deserves and that the public demands."

Faig Abbasov of Transport & Environment, who said: "apart from FIFA is It is difficult to think of a more international organization useless IMO. This week's climate talks They remembered the tidying up of deck chairs on a ship that Sinks. The IMO had the opportunity to set a course unequivocal and clear towards the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, But all that came out of it is a ambiguous compromise. Fortunately - he added - States as States The United Kingdom, the UK and the EU do not have to wait for China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia act. Ambitious national policies and routes Green maritime systems can have a global impact. It's time to think globally and act locally."

"What is particularly serious - has underlined Lucy Gilliam of Seas At Risk highlighting that the measures To decarbonize shipping they have been known for a long time and are effective - is that we have the know-how to deal with this crisis. We also know that the action will be much more economic inaction. The solutions are there and once again the IMO fails to act with the urgency required to address the climate crisis'.

While stressing that "the new gas strategy to greenhouse effect doubles long-term ambition compared to 2018 initial strategy," Delaine McCullough of Ocean Conservancy noted that "the control points for 2030 and the 2040 that have finally been agreed are not up to par of what is needed to limit heating at 1.5° C. Fortunately - McCullough specified - the Islands Marshalls, Vanuatu and other small island states have been able to to secure more significant checkpoints, but the IMO He must do better and others will have to intervene." "Despite the inclusion of emission reduction targets for maritime transport of 2030 and 2040 are not insignificant - added Madeline Rose of Pacific Environment - we praise the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu for their relentless diplomatic effort to maintain them. This strategy will see the shipping sector exhaust its carbon budget by 1.5°C by 2032. Fortunately, the major maritime nations, the Ports and companies can still act to decarbonise Fully maritime transport by 2040, and is what we will push them to do." Pointing out the failure of the IMO's action, Daniele Rao of Carbon Market Watch highlighted the need "that nations and groups Ambitious chart their own course and set carbon taxes at national and regional level of at least $100 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions'.